Pac 12 Expansion

[PAC12Teams]

Article today in the LVRJ

Much has changed in college athletics since the Pac-12 Conference announced in May it was hiring MGM Resorts executive George Kliavkoff as its new commissioner.

Texas and Oklahoma are eventually headed to the Southeastern Conference, and athletes are able to profit off their name, image and likeness. And more change is on the way.

Kliavkoff spoke Thursday about the issues facing college athletics and the role he sees for Las Vegas as those issues are resolved. The following was edited for clarity and length:

Review-Journal: Is there anything you can tell us about realignment and its impact on the Pac-12?

Kliavkoff: “I think we’re really, really happy with the 12 that we have in the league. The opportunity to revisit that following Texas and Oklahoma has certainly presented itself. I am not actively poaching any school or convincing anyone to leave their existing conference, but I wouldn’t be doing my job if I wasn’t listening to schools that wanted to go in the Pac-12, and we’ve had a lot of them reach out. Probably all of the ones you would expect and several you’d be surprised b“We have taken initial meetings with everyone that has expressed an interest. We have a working group … who are together deciding on what to recommend … At the end of the day, they’ll make the decision about whether or not to offer admission to the Pac-12 to any other schools.”

Review-Journal: Do you have a deadline?Kliavkoff: “There’s no hard deadline related to any of this, but I would say I don’t think it’s good for college athletics given the vibration that’s going on as a result of the Texas and Oklahoma news. The quicker we can dampen that vibration, the better. We will have a decision on whether we intend to expand or not in the next couple of weeks.”

[Matthew Thomas Castleton]

I think the PAC-12 is actually about to expand again.

[GameForAnyFuss]

I don’t. I think they’ll use this alliance as a trial run, to kick the tires on a few schools before expanding in a few years.

[Charlie]

I think the answer is in math. Are there 2 schools to add to the conference that will cause the split for existing schools to increase? How much of a conference’s TV value is driven from counting noses in markets or is driven from success and great product? Is our current situation due to lack of more schools and lack of population in our footprint or is it due to marketing and distribution mistakes? Do we want to grow like an empire that absorbs weaker neighbors? Did a wide footprint benefit the Big 12?

I think our strategy should be to improve the product as much as possible, as an example, quality out of conference wins. Will the new candidates do that? Next, to compete with the SEC, we need to gain what they have and that is interest beyond their footprint. I think that is more important than expanding our footprint. A gain of footprint in Texas can improve national interest if done right. Adding a school in Idaho and another in Utah or the Midwest does not move the needle. What new school gives us those quality out of conference wins?

The best hope for the Pac is that correcting marketing and distribution mistakes will allow us to gain parity with the B1G. We don’t need 8:00 pm games to find our niche, we need to play afternoon games that are already 2 hours offset and hope that CBS and FOX will go up against ESPN. We only need a single late night game to capture that time slot. If we leave any of it up to ESPN we will take it in the end.

[leftyjace]

Alliance is happening. This is he headline of an article in the Athletic:

Big Ten, Pac-12, ACC expected to formally announce alliance on Tuesday: Sources